There should be a question mark at the end of that sentence Trump - and No.

These cell phones need better auto-punctuation. Too bad you never noticed that. It might help you understand how absurd it is to take concerns about Ground Zero in New York and run them out to North Dakota. You'd also the be able to understand how this article attempts to build fear where there is none nor even a rational to be afraid.

Take this example...

Quote:

"Sometimes we go to the park and to our barbecues and we pray right there in the park. Someone could say, 'Oh, that's so offensive!' or 'My son is in the Army,' or 'We lost a son' or something and 'We don't like to see Muslims' ... It just opens the door to all sorts of bigoted behaviors," Ibrahim says.

These are all hypothetical concerns. No one has done this to the person expressing the concern. Now if this person had an actual concern, it should be the fact that the ACLU and other intolerant atheists would take offense to public displays of religion taking place on public land.

These cell phones need better auto-punctuation. Too bad you never noticed that. It might help you understand how absurd it is to take concerns about Ground Zero in New York and run them out to North Dakota. You'd also the be able to understand how this article attempts to build fear where there is none nor even a rational to be afraid.

Take this example...

These are all hypothetical concerns. No one has done this to the person expressing the concern. Now if this person had an actual concern, it should be the fact that the ACLU and other intolerant atheists would take offense to public displays of religion taking place on public land.

It might help you understand how absurd it is to take concerns about Ground Zero in New York and run them out to North Dakota. You'd also the be able to understand how this article attempts to build fear where there is none nor even a rational to be afraid.

The controversy over where an Islamic mosque can or cant be built is also spilling over into other communities too. Conservative activists in Temecula are trying to block construction of what would be the first Islamic mosque in Southwest Riverside County.

Mosque Building a Hot-Button Issue in Many Towns
While Freedom of Religion Is a Right all Americans Have, Vocal Anti-Muslim Sentiment Shows Some Think Otherwise--By Seth Doane

Quote:

(CBS) There are 2.5 million Muslims in the United States - and about 1,900 mosques around the nation. But building a mosque has suddenly become a hot-button issue in many communities, reports CBS News correspondent Seth Doane.

About 250 Muslim families live in Murfreesboro. They've lived in peace and prayed at a small mosque. Then trouble started brewing over the site where they want to expand and build a bigger Islamic center.

In June, residents packed meetings in protest.

"If construction begins I would encourage contractors to boycott it," said one resident.

"They want to make this instead of one nation under God - America," said Larry Anderson, a Murfreesboro Tennessee resident. "They want to make this one nation under Islam."[FT--fear, hatred and ignorance speaking hear--Muslims believe in God]

A few weeks ago, construction equipment at the site was set on fire. With that, the arsonist set nerves on edge too.

Quote:

Reporting from Beirut The heated debate across America over construction of the so-called ground zero mosque is reverberating across the globe, with the potential of creating a worldwide black eye for the United States.

Many Muslims abroad are miffed by the stateside debate, largely conducted by non-Muslims, that has grown so loud as to become a topic of discussion on talk shows and newspapers from Bali to Bahrain, from Baghdad to Berlin. The proposed Cordoba House has become a symbol of America's fraught relations with the world's 1.5 billion Muslims.

"Rejecting this has become like rejecting Islam itself," said Ahmad Moussalli, a professor of Islamic Studies at the American University of Beirut. "The United States has historically been distinguished by its tolerance, whereas Europe, France, Belgium and Holland have been among those who have rejected the symbolism of Islam. Embracing it will be positively viewed in the Islamic world."

These are all hypothetical concerns. No one has done this to the person expressing the concern. Now if this person had an actual concern, it should be the fact that the ACLU and other intolerant atheists would take offense to public displays of religion taking place on public land.

What is the difference between Muslims praying at their social event at a park than a church picnic where a prayer is said before the meal? I think that you are confusing the issue where the courts have ruled against religious symbols being on public lands. There should be no issue of prayers being conducted on public lands unless there are restrictions on which religion can pray there.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Well as it notes, some thing otherwise and some always will think otherwise. In California right now though they could easily stop that Mosque without having to do anything religiously. They could just put a few kangaroo rats on the land and suddenly it would be a habitat for endangered species.

I wish I were joking but the point is, that much like the Walmart example, people are being told what they can and cannot do with their land not just due to community considerations but basically because one person or a small group radically and strongly disagrees. They aren't just stopping mosques, they are stopping businesses and many solar sights here in California.

Quote:

What is the difference between Muslims praying at their social event at a park than a church picnic where a prayer is said before the meal? I think that you are confusing the issue where the courts have ruled against religious symbols being on public lands. There should be no issue of prayers being conducted on public lands unless there are restrictions on which religion can pray there.

Well as it notes, some thing otherwise and some always will think otherwise. In California right now though they could easily http://forums.appleinsider.com/image.../irked.gifstop that Mosque without having to do anything religiously. They could just put a few kangaroo rats on the land and suddenly it would be a habitat for endangered species.

I wish I were joking but the point is, that much like the Walmart example, people are being told what they can and cannot do with their land not just due to community considerations but basically because one person or a small group radically and strongly disagrees. They aren't just stopping mosques, they are stopping businesses and many solar sights here in California.

Nael says the congregation scrimped and saved money for years to build Southwest Riverside Countys first real mosque: a 25,000-square-foot facility with a prayer hall, recreation center, playground and more. The Islamic Center bought land 10 years ago next door to a Baptist church to carry out those plans. Imam Mahmoud Harmoush says it seemed like an ideal location at the time.

We felt so confident since it is a religious group over there, a church they will be welcoming and supportive, says Harmoush, who also teaches Arabic languages and Islamic culture at Cal State San Bernardino.

Unfortunately so far they are not, probably due to the lack of understanding. We love them and thats what I expected from our neighbors next door.

But next door neighbor Pastor William Rench and his flock at Calvary Baptist Church opposed the mosque from the start. They worry itll be too big, and create traffic and noise problems. And there are bigger concerns that cannot be addressed by a planning commission.

Weve always held the view that Islam is wrong and that its a false a religion and we disagree with it, says Rench. We hold the view the Mormonism is wrong, that Jehovahs Witnesses are wrong and that Roman Catholicism has gotten divergent from the truth. So, were not suggesting that Islam is not the only group that doesnt get it right!

Other opponents believe the Temecula mosque will attract radical followers or be used as a terrorist recruiting center, even though there is no evidence to back-up such claims. In fact, a study this year from Duke University found that mosques in the U.S. can actually discourage the spread of radical Islamic through youth programs and anti-violence campaigns.

That didnt deter activists tied to a Temecula Republican womens group and local Tea Party factions from staging a protest outside the Islamic center during Friday payers last month.

Cynthia Daum joined about two-dozen protestors across the street from the Islamic Center. They hoisted signs that declared Muslims Danced for Joy on 9-11 and Mosques are Monuments to Terrorism.

I dont care for their religion, dont care for their politics and I dont want them here. Dont want em, said Daum.

She and other opponents believe building mosques here, in New York and elsewhere in the US is part of a larger conspiracy.

I dont want them here opening mosques in every city, trying to open one up on Ground Zero in New York where they killed thousands and thousands of people, said Daum. And if their mosque was used for religious reasons, thatd be one thing - but theyre not. This is where they do their little powwow meetings. They dont belong here!

That believe is strong among opponents, despite the fact the Islamic Center of the Temecula Valley has lived peacefully in the community for twelve years and been praised by local leaders for its non-denominational charitable work. Its also part of an interfaith council that includes Christians, Jews and Mormons.

Part of the call of the Christian faith is that your neighbor is not just your friend or the people in your congregation, says Murrieta pastor Joe Zarro - an interfaith council organizer. He helped organize a large counter protest to last months anti-Mosque demonstration.

Jesus calls us to value love of neighbor above doctrine. He says all the law and all the prophets hang on loving your neighbor, on loving God. If your religious beliefs foster intolerance or bigotry you have to hold it against that principal and if doesnt meet that, its not of God.

Sorry tm--no Dipodomys ordii found.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

What is the difference between Muslims praying at their social event at a park than a church picnic where a prayer is said before the meal? I think that you are confusing the issue where the courts have ruled against religious symbols being on public lands. There should be no issue of prayers being conducted on public lands unless there are restrictions on which religion can pray there.

Yeah you did. If you read the opinion you will distinguish the difference between Prayer at the Inauguration and a prayer at a picnic. The article that you reference:

Atheists to Federal Appeals Court: public prayer makes us sick

Quote:

A lawsuit challenging prayer at Presidential inauguration is currently before the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and could be ruled on soon, according to a legal group defending the tradition.

The lawsuit, filed by hundreds of atheists and atheist groups, led by frequent litigant Michael Newdow, was thrown out by the lower federal court.

The plaintiffs include numerous individuals, and groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, The American Humanist Association, Atheists United, Atheists for Human Rights, and Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers.

Prayers designed to solemnize public events have a long and venerable history in our nation. The Constitution simply does not demand that our public institutions be amoral or atheistic, said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, who authored the opposition brief submitted last week on behalf of Drs. Warren and Lowery.

The First Amendment cannot be divorced from common sense. While atheists, humanists and freethinkers are a tiny minority in America, they are free to express and practice their lack of faith as they please." Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated. "That does not mean, however, that the vast majority of God-fearing citizens and public officials must be silenced in order to appease them.

Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their constitutional challenge to religious elements of the presidential inaugural ceremony. We affirm the dismissal because plaintiffs' claims regarding the 2009 inaugural ceremony are moot and plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the 2013 and 2017 inaugurations.

Some interesting points in the opinion:

Quote:

In analyzing the Establishment Clause issues in this case, I begin with several background principles.

First is an obvious point, but one worth emphasizing. In our constitutional tradition, all citizens are equally American, no matter what God they worship or if they worship no god at all. Plaintiffs are atheists. As atheists, they have no lesser rights or status as Americans or under the United States Constitution than Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, or members of any religious group.

Second, in deciding this case, we cannot gloss over or wish away the religious significance of the challenged Inaugural prayers.

Third, and relatedly, we cannot resolve this case by discounting the sense of anguish and outrage plaintiffs and some other Americans feel at listening to a government-sponsored religious prayer. Any effort to tell plaintiffs that it's not a big deal or it's de minimis would be entirely out of bounds, in my judgment. Plaintiffs' beliefs and sincere objections warrant our respect.

Fourth, at the same time, we likewise cannot dismiss the desire of others in America to publicly ask for God's blessing on certain government activities and to publicly seek God's guidance for certain government officials.

This case concerns government-sponsored religious speech at public events outside of the public school setting. The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), sets forth the Court's approach to that issue. In Marsh, the Court upheld a state legislature's practice of beginning each session with prayer by a state-paid chaplain. The Court reasoned that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer was deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.

The Supreme Court's holding in Marsh-allowing government-sponsored religious speech or prayer at a public event where prayers have traditionally occurred, at least so long as the prayers are not proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative-does not satisfy all Americans. No holding on this issue would in our pluralistic society. But the precedent has endured, and as a lower court we must follow and apply it in this case.
In light of that extensive historical record and the non-proselytizing, non-exploitative nature of the oath, it comes as no surprise that the Supreme Court several times has suggested, at least in dicta, that the Constitution permits so help me God in officially prescribed oaths of office.

Under Marsh and other Supreme Court precedents, the Establishment Clause permits so help me God in the official Presidential oath.

Plaintiffs' challenge to the traditional Inaugural prayers (usually consisting of an invocation and benediction) also fails. Those prayers closely resemble the legislative prayers upheld by the Supreme Court in Marsh.

Like legislative prayers, prayers at Presidential Inaugural ceremonies are deeply rooted in American history and tradition. See County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 671-72 n. 9 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (our Presidential inaugurations have traditionally opened with a request for divine blessing). Indeed, formal prayers have been associated with presidential inaugurations since the inauguration of George Washington.

To be sure, unlike Marsh, this case involves the Executive, not the Legislature. But there is no persuasive reason why opening every executive session with prayer would raise more of an Establishment Clause problem than opening every legislative session with prayer.

Having established that Inaugural prayers are permissible in concept, we confront a distinct and delicate question regarding the precise content of the prayers. Recall that Marsh stated that [t]he content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. That being so, it is not for us to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 794-95.

Under Marsh, we know that proselytizing prayers-that is, those that seek to convert-are problematic. Inaugural prayers traditionally have not crossed that boundary.

Applying Marsh and the other relevant Supreme Court precedents, I would hold that both so help me God in the Presidential oath and the prayers at the Presidential Inauguration do not violate the Establishment Clause. I also agree with our Court's decision to deny plaintiffs' challenge to the invocation God save the United States and this honorable Court.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

What you are failing to grasp is that due to the environmental movement, no one need declare religious intolerance to stop the mosque. The key words were in the article that you quoted but ignored.

They worry it’ll be too big, and create traffic and noise problems. And there are bigger concerns that cannot be addressed by a planning commission.

The point I made with this and the earlier Walmart mention was that this can be tied up due to community concerns that have nothing to do with religion. They can have this group that has scrimped and saved go broke producing endless traffic, environmental, noise and other assorted types of reports and studies. They can send them back to the drawing board at $10,000 a pop because they don't like the number of handicapped parking places, the height of the building, the colors of it relative to the community, etc. The point I was teasing about half in jest was that if they released some kangaroo rats on the property the group trying to build the mosque would go broke trying to satisfy bureaucrats that they weren't killing an endangered species and destroying their habitat.

The point is that in order to keep some extremist minority from lording over Muslims via that mechanism, you have to remove the mechanism. We have moved from the realm of negative freedoms, those that the government doesn't have to right to impede, to positive freedoms, those that the government gets to tax everyone to death to enforce.

Quote:

Yeah you did. If you read the opinion you will distinguish the difference between Prayer at the Inauguration and a prayer at a picnic. The article that you reference:

Some interesting points in the opinion:

Yes and if you had a bit of imagination, you would understand that when it noted this....

The lawsuit, filed by hundreds of atheists and atheist groups, led by frequent litigant Michael Newdow, was thrown out by the lower federal court..... that they are basically judge shopping and when they find the right judge, then it becomes the law for us all. He is a frequent litigant because he has already participated in four lawsuits. If you go digging into the organizations to which he belongs, you will note they do not agree with the courts view that tradition plus lack of proselytizing = okay. They will continue to pursue their view in different forums and with different judges until someone says yes and then attempt to federalize the issue.

You have see where this has played out before and note what happens when you have an extreme minority willing to endlessly pursue the matter, like Newdow or imagine the woman who doesn't want that Mosque. The reality is that with enough time, they'll get what they want and so we should investigate the mechanism that enables that rather than complaining about the singular parties or small extreme percentages because they will always exist.

The point is when a government can regulate what you eat, what you ingest recreationally, what you drink, if you have health insurance, etc. a motivated and extreme minority can stall the bureaucracy from making a decision related to their "sensitivities" or "concerns" almost forever. Since we can't make the people go away, we as the majority need to make the mechanism go away. If it can stop Walmart from entering New York City, it can certainly stop a smaller developer or a local group trying to build a mosque or church.

When people complain about gay marriage and desire to federalize the issue, I ask them how they feel about the fact that many states are willing to legalize pot but cannot due to it being a federalized issue. We could see this with any number of points. When the system doesn't stay within it's prescribed limits, the people that abuse it gain all the power. Whether it be the mosque, Walmart, a solar power installation, you name it, we need limited government so that the extreme few cannot use said government to lord over us all.

What you are failing to grasp is that due to the environmental movement, no one need declare religious intolerance to stop the mosque. The key words were in the article that you quoted but ignored.

They worry itll be too big, and create traffic and noise problems. And there are bigger concerns that cannot be addressed by a planning commission.

Quote:

But next door neighbor Pastor William Rench and his flock at Calvary Baptist Church opposed the mosque from the start.They worry itll be too big, and create traffic and noise problems. And there are bigger concerns that cannot be addressed by a planning commission.

The Pastor and congregation of the CBC don't want the Mosque in their neighborhood and are only raising this as a RED HERRING. If the Mormons wanted to build a Tabernacle next to the CBC, you can bet that there would be opposition. These people are religious bigots:

THE REAL ISSUE WITH THE CBC

Quote:

Weve always held the view that Islam is wrong and that its a false a religion and we disagree with it, says Rench. We hold the view the Mormonism is wrong, that Jehovahs Witnesses are wrong and that Roman Catholicism has gotten divergent from the truth. So, were not suggesting that Islam is not the only group that doesnt get it right!

[---But what they are suggesting is that they are the only ones getting it rightwhich is just wrong.]

That didnt deter activists tied to a Temecula Republican womens group and local Tea Party factions from staging a protest outside the Islamic center during Friday payers last month. Cynthia Daum joined about two-dozen protestors across the street from the Islamic Center. They hoisted signs that declared Muslims Danced for Joy on 9-11 and Mosques are Monuments to Terrorism.

I dont care for their religion, dont care for their politics and I dont want them here. Dont want em, said Daum. [NO HATE HERE]

She and other opponents believe building mosques here, in New York and elsewhere in the US is part of a larger conspiracy.

I dont want them here opening mosques in every city, trying to open one up on Ground Zero in New York where they killed thousands and thousands of people, said Daum. And if their mosque was used for religious reasons, thatd be one thing - but theyre not. This is where they do their little powwow meetings. They dont belong here!

Or are these people environmentalist? Plain and simple YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS ONE---PERIOD. You are also only focussed on the Temecula Mosque and are ignoring the opposition to other Mosque in Tennessee and Florida.

NO HATE HERE--JUST ENVIRONMENTALIST TRYING TO SAVE THE TENNESSEE BOOBIE

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Yes and if you had a bit of imagination, you would understand that when it noted this....

The lawsuit, filed by hundreds of atheists and atheist groups, led by frequent litigant Michael Newdow, was thrown out by the lower federal court..... that they are basically judge shopping and when they find the right judge, then it becomes the law for us all.

The article you referred to only raised the question of the Constitutionality of the Prayer at the Inauguration---nothing more---nothing less. Don't think that they will raise this issue again. The rest of your post is irrelevant to the issue raised in the article and I won't waste any more time in answering.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

You can understand the US flags (well, you can't actually - but at least this is happening in America though what flags have to do with it I don't quite grasp) but the presence of Israeli flags is telling on many levels.

On the most simplistic one it shows this is not an issue of the mosque or environment but one which takes in the broader approach of support for Israel and Islam being a perceived enemy of Israel.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Sego, there are a lot of liberal Jews whose ancestors turned the swamps of Israel into the fertile lands they are today. My great-uncle was one of them. I know Israel is your pet issue, and there are a lot of redneck nutjobs who support Israel for the wrong reasons, but please don't say that the Israeli flags are telling. It's a very complex issue and you're going very black and white on it.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Sego, there are a lot of liberal Jews whose ancestors turned the swamps of Israel into the fertile lands they are today. My great-uncle was one of them. I know Israel is your pet issue, and there are a lot of redneck nutjobs who support Israel for the wrong reasons, but please don't say that the Israeli flags are telling. It's a very complex issue and you're going very black and white on it.

Ok...just wondering why in a protest against a mosque they would be felt to be necessary.

I don't deny your points but can't help feeling the people waving the Israeli flags aren't exactly the the brightest bulbs in the box....I'd be prepared to bet they aren't Jewish either.

Look at it another way; suppose the US wanted to build some establishment in the UK or somewhere and for some reason people protested: probably ok to wave Union Jacks (though I bet that would not happen) but I think if you saw Iranian flags there then it would rightly raise questions about why the flag-wavers were really protesting.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Sego, there are a lot of liberal Jews whose ancestors turned the swamps of Israel into the fertile lands they are today. My great-uncle was one of them. I know Israel is your pet issue, and there are a lot of redneck nutjobs who support Israel for the wrong reasons, but please don't say that the Israeli flags are telling. It's a very complex issue and you're going very black and white on it.

If a Jew is Anti-Islam, for whatever reason, he or she is by no means a Liberal.

I think that this would be a big slap in the face to the families of those who died on 9/11. Suppose, for example, that one of your loved ones was killed in 9/11. Would you want a Muslim mosque so close to where they died? I would presume NOT. And I also wonder why they have to build it so close to Ground Zero. Why not in the countryside or the like?

I think that this would be a big slap in the face to the families of those who died on 9/11. Suppose, for example, that one of your loved ones was killed in 9/11. Would you want a Muslim mosque so close to where they died? I would presume NOT. And I also wonder why they have to build it so close to Ground Zero. Why not in the countryside or the like?

Is two blocks away too close for the eighty or so Muslims who died on 9/11 too?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I am not racist. Try opening a Christain church in Mecca or one of the other Muslim holy cities. See what happens.

This is one of the most stupid arguments that keeps popping up again and again. We're not in Saudi Arabia. You really need to read the other post here as the argument of the right to build the Mosque has been established as a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. You are falling into the trap that ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST----PLEASE DON'T.

The opposition of whether the Park 51 Project should be built at its planed site is based upon ignorance and hatred. If you doubt this assertion read the other post about opposition to Mosque in Tennessee, Florida, and California. OBTW the Qur'an burning by pastor jones was just a fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdgodin

And you still have not answered me why they can't open a Mosque somewhere else.

Why should the Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center have to move. As it was pointed out, there were innocent Muslims who died on 9/11/2001 at the World Trade Center.

New York (CNN) -- Muslim-American leaders gathered Monday to voice their support for the building of mosques in America and, more specifically, for the planned Islamic center and mosque to be known as Park51 near Manhattan's ground zero.

Imam Al-Amin Abdul Latif, president of the Islamic Leadership Council of Metropolitan New York, read a joint statement on the steps of the Park51 location.

"We stand for the constitutional right of Muslims and Americans of all faiths to build houses of worship anywhere in our nation as allowed by local laws and regulations," he said.

Camp David has been rattled up with Muslim's probably from a very early age. Seeing the majority of votes here tally up against his views, he did what any self respecting right wing Christian would do, cheat. So he created a fake name he could quickly access for polls and made it so simple he wouldn't forget it, hence "cd" (camp david) and something easy to remember "god in". But once he voted it must have been irresistable to him to act like another poster who could spin the same baseless hatred as he. Having surcome to this temptation he inadvertantly blew his...um...cover.

Further strengthening the connection is "god in" which has conotations which align with "camp".

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Camp David has been rattled up with Muslim's probably from a very early age. Seeing the majority of votes here tally up against his views, he did what any self respecting right wing Christian would do, cheat. So he created a fake name he could quickly access for polls and made it so simple he wouldn't forget it, hence "cd" (camp david) and something easy to remember "god in". But once he voted it must have been irresistable to him to act like another poster who could spin the same baseless hatred as he. Having surcome to this temptation he inadvertantly blew his...um...cover.

Further strengthening the connection is "god in" which has conotations which align with "camp".

Seems a little sad....I feel a bit sorry for him now.

Compassion is a terrible thing.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Camp David has been rattled up with Muslim's probably from a very early age. Seeing the majority of votes here tally up against his views, he did what any self respecting right wing Christian would do, cheat. So he created a fake name he could quickly access for polls and made it so simple he wouldn't forget it, hence "cd" (camp david) and something easy to remember "god in". But once he voted it must have been irresistable to him to act like another poster who could spin the same baseless hatred as he. Having surcome to this temptation he inadvertantly blew his...um...cover.my hypoths

Further strengthening the connection is "god in" which has conotations which align with "camp".

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

Seems a little sad....I feel a bit sorry for him now.

Compassion is a terrible thing.

You mean that my hypothesis is correct??? Need more data to back this up.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

I am not this 'Camp David' person I am someone different. I have profiles on a lot of websites and all of them on this name. I have not registered here before and I am not a troll. And what is wrong with posting my own opinion? I seriously did not know that there were innocent Muslims who died on 9/11. And why because I am new do you AUTOMATICALLY assume I'm a troll?

I am not this 'Camp David' person I am someone different. I have profiles on a lot of websites and all of them on this name. I have not registered here before and I am not a troll. And what is wrong with posting my own opinion? I seriously did not know that there were innocent Muslims who died on 9/11. And why because I am new do you AUTOMATICALLY assume I'm a troll?

I got the same treatment when I first came aboard. Delusions and paranoia are pretty common among the outspoken "progressives" in PO.